No plain explanation of what this changes is stored.
No recorded use is stored in reader language.
No statement of the main limit is recorded.
The four opening statements run to 26 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Stand-in result
A stand-in result is a number measured because the real result takes too long.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like judging a journey by the speedometer rather than by arriving.
Where that stops being true. Speed does predict arrival. Many stand-in results do not predict the real one.
What people get wrong. A stand-in result is often reported as the result itself.
A surrogate endpoint substituted for a clinical endpoint, valid only where the substitution has been shown to hold.
Enzyme
An enzyme is a protein that speeds up one chemical change.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
An enzyme is like a machine on a production line doing one cut.
Where that stops being true. A machine is switched on and off by a person. Enzymes are controlled by the cell.
What people get wrong. Enzymes are thought to be used up. They are not; they work again and again.
A catalytic protein that lowers the activation energy of a specific reaction.
Receptor
A receptor is a part of a cell that a signal fits into.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A receptor is like a lock waiting for one key.
Where that stops being true. A lock either opens or does not. A receptor can be half-triggered, or worn out.
What people get wrong. Fitting a receptor is read as causing a benefit. It causes a step, and nothing more.
A protein that binds a specific ligand and converts that binding into a cellular response.
Pathway
A pathway is a chain of steps inside a cell, each one setting off the next.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A pathway is like a row of dominoes.
Where that stops being true. Dominoes fall one way. Pathways loop back and can switch themselves off.
What people get wrong. Changing one step is read as changing the outcome. Other steps often absorb it.
An ordered series of molecular interactions producing a defined cellular change.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What was measured, goal by goal
One row for each goal a registered study measured something for. One column for each kind of thing that could be measured.
Registered studies list 9 outcome measures that RNAWiki could read. A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. 0 of the matched studies tested this substance, and 0 posted a result.
There is no single score. A strong test result and a weak life result are different facts.
Goals down the side, kinds of measurement across the top. Each cell says what kind of thing was registered, not what was found.
Goal
Life outcome
What a body can do
How a person feels
A test result
A step in the body
Harms
How long
Who was studied
Focus
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Pain
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
…Waiting for a reviewer1 registered symptom measure.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Which registered measures put each goal on this table
Focus
montreal cognitive assessment scale; cognitive impairment
Pain
abdominal pain severity
Sorted by fixed word lists, version v1. A name the rules do not recognise stays unsorted rather than moving to the nearest column.
What each mark on this table means
∅ Nothing in the sources checked
No registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
— Not recorded
Harms were not a registered measure for this goal.
… Waiting for a reviewer
Who was studied is listed further down the page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Number of Participants who transformed to negative status of bacterial vaginosis
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT01421615
How many people
5000
Study design
Phase 1
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Extracorporeal
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
FDA label (openFDA SPL) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Clinical sepsis and/or death
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT01214473
How many people
4556
Study design
Not applicable
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Extracorporeal
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
FDA label (openFDA SPL) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Diarrhoeal episodes in children
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT00534170
How many people
4000
Study design
Phase 3
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Extracorporeal
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
FDA label (openFDA SPL) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Blood Culture Contamination
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT01216761
How many people
3879
Study design
Not applicable
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Extracorporeal
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
FDA label (openFDA SPL) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Number of patients with Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (VAP)
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT02462590
How many people
2650
Study design
Phase 4
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Extracorporeal
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
FDA label (openFDA SPL) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
NCT06810154
How many people
2170
Study design
Phase 3
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Result not recorded on this page
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Extracorporeal
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
openFDA NDC Directory · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
openFDA SPL label · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
FDA label (openFDA SPL) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
What we know
RNAWiki holds 6 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How close this is to real life
The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.
□Living longer, or avoiding a major eventNo evidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.0 registered measures of this kind. 1 written-up study measured this and did not show a benefit.
□What a body can do day to dayNo evidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.No registered study measures this.
□Measured performanceNo evidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.No registered study measures this.
■Symptoms and quality of lifeEvidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.1 registered measure of this kind.
■A number that stands in for healthEvidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.1 registered measure of this kind.
■A step measured inside a personEvidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
■AnimalsEvidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.Stored records in C. elegans (roundworm), Mouse, Rat. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
■Cells in a dishEvidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.Stored mechanism abstracts describe steps measured in cells or tissue.
□A guess from softwareNo evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.
Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Felt, measured, or meaningful
Three different things that get called the same word. Registered studies measured all three, and mixing them is how a blood test becomes a health claim.
Felt
Things a person could notice without a test.
abdominal pain severity
Measured
Things only a test, a scale or a device shows.
c reactive protein
Meaningful
Things that change how a life goes, not only a number.
No registered study measured anything of this kind.
A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. A number moving is not the same as a life going better. The two are shown apart here.
Felt, but not shown to help. A person notices a change. No study showed it leads anywhere good.
Measured, but not felt. A number moves. The person notices nothing. Both can be true.
Measured, but not shown to matter. A number moves in the good direction. Nobody showed that lives went better.
Matters, but takes years. The result that counts may take longer than anyone would keep watching.
Names that fit none of the three (7)
development of antibiotic associated diarrhoea
development of clostridium difficile associated diarrhoea
mini mental state examination scale
montreal cognitive assessment scale
cognitive impairment
interleukin 6
length of stay
These are harms, study-process measures, or names the rules did not recognise. They are shown rather than dropped.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
,For alleviating symptoms of inflammatory reactions associated with impaired skin barrier function, such as redness, burning sensation, and discomfort 2,Temporarily relieves itching and redness caused by mild skin irritation and insect bites 3,Help prevent bacterial infections in areas with minor…
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Where the result stopped carrying
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely.
On this record: Some registered studies measured things that match no goal on this page.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (10)
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Varies by country
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Extracorporeal
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Not usually supervised: sold as a supplement or food ingredient where recorded. That is a legal category, not a safety judgement.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
The identity record classes it as a botanical or organism preparation; no register records an approval.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
Sold as cream, liquid, capsule, given by the extracorporeal, oral route.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take∅Nothing found in the sources checked
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
∅Nothing found in the sources checked
No harm is recorded against this substance in the sources RNAWiki checked. Finding nothing is not the same as showing there is nothing.
The sources listed were searched and held nothing. That is not the same as nothing existing.
Reports sent to a regulator
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction.
Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing.
The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete.
News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report.
A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Lactobacillus Acidophilus appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 9 most-reported reaction terms, 695 reaction mentions were counted. One report can name several reactions.
open-targets-adr · recorded 2026-06-24 · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Extracorporeal
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
Nothing further is recorded about which forms are sold.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
5 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. None of them contains it on its own, so nothing on this page can separate it from what it is combined with.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 63083-9412 · read 2026-08-29
They are sold as capsule, cream and liquid, taken extracorporeal and oral.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 63083-9412 · read 2026-08-29
5 published labels name it as an active ingredient. None of them describes this substance alone, so no label text on this page can be attributed to it rather than to a combination.
US prescribing information · 06109931-4597-4bc1-a4bc-2b312c2b01ca · read 2026-08-29
Those labels are classed as human otc drug and human prescription drug.
US prescribing information · 06109931-4597-4bc1-a4bc-2b312c2b01ca · read 2026-08-29
2721 marketed supplement labels list this ingredient, classed as non-nutrient/non-botanical, other combinations and bacteria.
Those labels carry all other and structure/function claims. A claim of that kind is written by the manufacturer and is not assessed by any regulator, so its presence says nothing about whether it is true.
Microvara is oral at HOW SUPPLIED Microvara™ (NDC 85477-711-30) is supplied in bottles containing 30 capsules., recorded as fda label in effect 2026-02-23 in the United States.
US prescribing information · 70b1e715-2b36-4b9b-af84-8e90dfe97ad1 · read 2026-08-30
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
Watching one thing carefully can tell you whether it moved. It cannot tell you what moved it.
This is sold without a prescription, so a person can sensibly watch one thing and see whether it moves.
Pick one goal. One goal only. Two at once cannot be told apart afterwards.
Pick one thing to watch. Registered studies measured things like: c reactive protein.
Measure before you start. Take the same measurement several times first. One reading is not a starting point.
Know the swing. Write down how much it moves on its own across a normal week.
Change one thing. Change nothing else at the same time, including training and sleep.
Give it the study length. No finished study window is recorded, so no length is suggested here.
Track whether you took it. Missed days are the most common reason a home test shows nothing.
Read the trend. Look at the line across weeks. A single reading tells you almost nothing.
What not to measure
Anything that swings more day to day than the change you are looking for.
A wearable estimate of sleep stages, which is an estimate and not a measurement.
Weight on one morning, which mostly records water.
A feeling you did not write down before starting, such as: abdominal pain severity.
When to stop
Stop if something new and unpleasant starts, and ask a pharmacist or doctor.
Stop if you cannot keep everything else steady, because the result will not mean anything.
Stop at the end of the window you set, and read the trend then.
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki does not work out an amount for anyone.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
How much did people take in the studies?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. A result belongs to an amount. Without the amount the result floats free.
What would answer it
A stored source that records it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
How fast does the body clear it?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. Without this, nothing on this page can say how long anything lasts.
What would answer it
A stored source that records it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Lactobacillus Acidophilus are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people∅Nothing found in the sources checked
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
∅Nothing found in the sources checked
No traced study record is stored for this substance.
The sources listed were searched and held nothing. That is not the same as nothing existing.
Checks this page had to pass
✓ Passed
Identity resolved
no open identity hold
✓ Passed
No unresolved merge across substance families
no quarantine open
✗ Not passed
Every public sentence names a source
The opening statement carries no source: the record holds neither an explanation nor a recorded use.
✗ Not passed
Trial roles classified for highlighted evidence
No registered study is classified as testing this substance.
✓ Passed
No internal keys in reader text
enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
✓ Passed
Safety mode resolved
The identity record classes it as a botanical or organism preparation; no register records an approval.
✓ Passed
Canonical metadata present
slug and display name present
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How this medicine reached us
Kept near the foot of the page. A historical event moves up only when it changes something about this substance today.
What the approval register records
The earliest marketing start date recorded for a listed product is 19840815.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 63083-9412 · read 2026-08-29
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What to learn next
Ordered by what would most change how you read this page, starting with what is easiest to misunderstand.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
6 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
The path through the body — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
Claims that go past the evidence — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
Recorded evidence blocks (10)
Q1
What did Lactobacillus Acidophilus's largest trial (336 people) and its longest (5.7 years) measure?
336 people in Lactobacillus Acidophilus's largest registered study, 5.7 years in its longest registered window, measuring Development of antibiotic associated diarrhoea. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
6 na, 2 phase4, 1 na or unstated, 1 phase2, 1 phase3; NCT05845983; 2028-12-31; no ageing endpoint recorded. Last human test completed 2025, NCT07144475.
Interpretation These counts include studies where Lactobacillus Acidophilus was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.
Show the evidence
na
6
phase4
2
na or unstated
1
phase2
1
phase3
1
Last recorded human testNCT07144475
2025-03-04
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q2
From C. elegans to human: where has Lactobacillus Acidophilus shown lifespan?
Interpretation Development of antibiotic associated diarrhoea — the recorded outcome words.
Show the evidence
C. elegans
lifespan
mouse
lifespan
rat
mechanism-only
humanNCT00973908
mechanism-only; Development of antibiotic associated diarrhoea; 10
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q3
More Lactobacillus Acidophilus was worse in human: at what point?
U-shaped in human: "Determination of growth promoting activity of polysaccharides was performed in U-shaped 96-plates in an ELISA reader in relation to the reference strain of L. acidophilus and two clinical strains of L. rhamnosus." Europe PMC · dose-response search · 2026-05-29
"Determination of growth promoting activity of polysaccharides was performed in U-shaped 96-plates in an ELISA reader in relation to the reference strain of L. acidophilus and two clinical strains of L. rhamnosus."
dose-responsePMID 42296114
"The detection of Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM and Bifidobacterium lactis Bi07 in some stool samples suggests transient and partial colonization, highlighting the need for dose-response studies with this synbiotic product."
biphasic
PMID 38666704
"In this work, the SCNE of probiotic <i>Lactobacillus acidophilus</i> with water-insoluble luteolin and Fe<sup>3+</sup> ions is achieved by the vortex-assisted, biphasic water-oil system."
PMID 28523825
"Its versatility is demonstrated with various biphasic systems: hollow microcapsules, encasing microbial or mammalian cells, that are generated at the water-oil interface in a microfluidic device; a cytoprotective Fe<sup>III</sup> -TA shell that forms on the surface of the alginate microbead, which then entraps probiotic Lactobacillus acidophilus; and a pericellular Fe<sup>III</sup> -TA shell that…"
dose responsePMID 22023067
"A double-blind, dose response, placebo-controlled trial of the probiotic formula (Bio-K+ Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285 and Lactobacillus casei LBC80R formula) for prophylaxis of AAD and CDAD was published in 2010."
recorded 2026-05-29 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q4
Could one person measure Lactobacillus Acidophilus's effect on development of antibiotic associated diarrhoea?
Development of antibiotic associated diarrhoea: measured in Lactobacillus Acidophilus's trials.
Interpretation development of antibiotic associated diarrhoea is the recorded endpoint.
Show the evidence
biomarkers
development of antibiotic associated diarrhoea; 2026-09-01
development of clostridium difficile associated diarrhoea; 2026-09-01
abdominal pain severity; 2026-09-01
mini mental state examination scale; 2026-09-01
montreal cognitive assessment scale; 2026-09-01
cognitive impairment; 2026-09-01
3 more recorded rows
biomarkers
c reactive protein; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
interleukin 6; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
length of stay; 2026-09-01
Not recorded for this substance
a recorded half-life; a small human trial reporting an effect
Q5
Which of abdominal pain severity, c reactive protein and cognitive impairment did Lactobacillus Acidophilus's trials measure?
abdominal pain severity, c reactive protein and cognitive impairment lead 9 outcome terms across Lactobacillus Acidophilus's trials. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
mini mental state examination scale, montreal cognitive assessment scale, cognitive impairment, c reactive protein, interleukin 6 and length of stay follow.
Show the evidence
development of antibiotic associated diarrhoea
1
development of clostridium difficile associated diarrhoea
1
abdominal pain severity
1
mini mental state examination scale
1
montreal cognitive assessment scale
1
cognitive impairment
1
3 more recorded rows
c reactive protein
1
interleukin 6
1
length of stay
1
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q6
Which of Lactobacillus Acidophilus's 4 ongoing trials reports first?
Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE, 0-30) scale; Cognitive Impairment; latest 2028-12-31
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT05656209
"LA Improves the Prognosis of Patients With ICVD After Surgery"; n 236; "Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE, 0-30) scale"; 2027-12-31
NCT05845983
"LA Improves the Prognosis of Patients With ICVD"; n 236; "Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE, 0-30) scale"; 2028-12-31
NCT06830824
"Supplementation of Inulin + L. Acidophilus in Elders with T2DM"; n 48; "Cognitive Impairment"; 2025-12
NCT07635212
"Efficacy of Probiotics for OAB Patients With Anxiety"; n 218; "Change in the Mean Number of Micturitions per 24 Hours"; 2028-12-31
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q7
Which 3 trials of Lactobacillus Acidophilus posted no result?
Posted no result
3 of 3 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00973908, NCT02642289 and NCT03482765
Completion dates
oldest 2012-12; newest 2019-06-30
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00973908
2012-12
NCT02642289
2016-02
NCT03482765
2019-06-30
Q8
At the median, Lactobacillus Acidophilus's trials enrolled 184 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
184
Largest enrolment
336
Registered trials counted
10
Q9
What do 695 spontaneous reports say about Lactobacillus Acidophilus — and not say?
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Lactobacillus Acidophilus appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 9 most-reported reaction terms, 695 reaction mentions were counted: coma 157; gastrooesophageal reflux disease 157; pneumonia aspiration 157; somnolence 157. open-targets-adr · CHEMBL2109070 · 2026-06-24
Show the evidence
coma
157
gastrooesophageal reflux disease
157
pneumonia aspiration
157
somnolence
157
beta haemolytic streptococcal infection
15
necrosis ischaemic
15
3 more recorded rows
pneumonia streptococcal
15
septic shock
15
hepatic necrosis
7
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q10
What is recorded about Lactobacillus Acidophilus and autophagy?
"Consequently, the current research used both in vitro and in silico approaches to study whether Lactobacillus acidophilus AgNPs could inhibit cell proliferation autophagy and promote apoptosis in HepG2 cells." — where Lactobacillus Acidophilus and autophagy appear together. Europe PMC · pathway abstract search · 2024-06-27
"Consequently, the current research used both in vitro and in silico approaches to study whether Lactobacillus acidophilus AgNPs could inhibit cell proliferation autophagy and promote apoptosis in HepG2 cells."
AMPK
PMID 38051435
"These findings indicate that the anti-obesity activity of L. acidophilus JYLA-126 correlates with activation of the AMPK signaling pathway through improved gut-liver interactions."
PMID 38147914
"The postbiotics fermented with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (OF-1) and OF-5, the one fermented with the optimal selection of five probiotics (i.e., L. plantarum, Limosilactobacillus reuteri, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Bifidobacterium lactis) alleviated HS induced liver injury, impaired fatty acid metabolism and inflammation through activating AMPK/SREBP-1c…"
autophagyPMID 38934644
"In summary, our study demonstrates that oral administration of <i>L. acidophilus</i> confers effective protection against <i>C. p</i> infection in C57BL/6 mice by modulating macrophage autophagy, thereby augmenting bacterial clearance and preserving gut microbiota and function stability."
sirtuin
"Here we have identified and produced two potential sirtuins from the probiotic bacterium Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM and screening more than 80 different substrates, covering 26 acyl groups on five peptide scaffolds, showed that one of the investigated proteins—Sir2La—is a bona fide NAD + -dependent sirtuin, catalyzing hydrolysis of acetyl‐, propionyl‐, and butyryllysine."
NAD+
"Here we have identified and produced two potential sirtuins from the probiotic bacterium Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM and screening more than 80 different substrates, covering 26 acyl groups on five peptide scaffolds, showed that one of the investigated proteins—Sir2La—is a bona fide NAD + -dependent sirtuin, catalyzing hydrolysis of acetyl‐, propionyl‐, and butyryllysine."
recorded 2024-06-27 · last checked 2026-09-04
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md
✗ required summary fields resolved: 5 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Most important common problem, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 8 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.